Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming.threads > #4226
| From | Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming.threads |
| Subject | I have thought more about the following paper about Lock Cohorting |
| Date | 2018-04-28 23:10 -0400 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <pc2v0m$ks9$3@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
Hello... I have thought more about the following paper about Lock Cohorting: A General Technique for Designing NUMA Locks: http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mag/a13-dice.pdf I think it is not a "bright" idea, this NUMA Locks that uses Lock Cohorting do not optimize the inside of the critical section protected by the NUMA Locks that use Lock Cohorting, because the inside of those criticals sections may transfer/bring Data from different NUMA nodes, so this will cancel the gains that we have got from NUMA Locks that uses Lock cohorting. So i don't think i will implement Lock Cohorting. So then i have invented my scalable AMLock and scalable MLock, please read for example about my scalable MLock here: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-mlock You can download my scalable MLock for C++ by downloading my C++ synchronization objects library that contains some of my "inventions" here: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/c-synchronization-objects-library The Delphi and FreePascal version of my scalable MLock is here: https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-mlock Thank you, Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
I have thought more about the following paper about Lock Cohorting Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com> - 2018-04-28 23:10 -0400
csiph-web